yes that is currently the only option and that's why this thread exists - because we see casual as problematic, when most decks played there are competitive.
I feel bad as I just played a game in casual with a murloc shaman deck (I know you hate this especially) in my defence I am teching myself how to use the hagatha hero card properly so when I go on ladder I will know what I'm doing.
I only played one game though, as I realized 90% of the time I'd just be steamrolling them with murlocs early game, which is not the intention at all.
Thinking about crafting some bits for a basic control shaman where i can test her out with this instead, and I don't feel as bad playing control in casual.
In fact I can farm all the filthy netdeckers playing aggro with it. ha ha.
I can actually help teach you how to play the Hagatha hero card.
Play Hagatha
Play stuff
Get stuff
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
yes that is currently the only option and that's why this thread exists - because we see casual as problematic, when most decks played there are competitive.
I feel bad as I just played a game in casual with a murloc shaman deck (I know you hate this especially) in my defence I am teching myself how to use the hagatha hero card properly so when I go on ladder I will know what I'm doing.
I only played one game though, as I realized 90% of the time I'd just be steamrolling them with murlocs early game, which is not the intention at all.
Thinking about crafting some bits for a basic control shaman where i can test her out with this instead, and I don't feel as bad playing control in casual.
In fact I can farm all the filthy netdeckers playing aggro with it. ha ha.
I can actually help teach you how to play the Hagatha hero card.
This debate pretty much comes down to one batch of the playerbase wanting to dictate what the others can play in 'their mode'.
Games should not be about allowing one group of people forcing another group of people how to play.
You may not be able to force others not to use certain decks, but that in nowise disallows you from playing what you want.
It's like if you played rec level sports, and you and some buddies got together for a drop in game at the local venue where other players could drop in and play, and then a full team of professionals showed up and completely dominated everyone, and said, "Why are you complaining? It's just for fun, who cares?" Technically there's no rule they'd be violating....but it's a dick move.
This isn't an argument about what is or isn't in the current set of rules. Clearly there are people who play Hearthstone that don't like queueing into high level competitive decks in a non competitive format. Personally I like to play casual just so I can try out my far fetched ideas and play cards that don't otherwise see play. To suggest that I just concede until I stop queueing into netdecks or just accept my loss and move on because "it's Casual, your losses don't matter" is to ask me to take zero enjoyment from playing and winning. I'm not playing Casual to grind out 100 gold. I'm playing it for the enjoyment. There is no fun to be had from losing/conceding in 80 to 95% of my games. No, my opinion isn't the only one that matters...but neither is my opinion completely meaningless. Clearly there are players that want to have a mode that is free from high level competitive decks.
If they're not going to be working on a new mode (spoiler: they're not), they should at least be working on improving their existing modes. Or....not, and leaving a section of their playerbase completely ignored.
I'm going to be real with you. What you want it impossible to do at the level you're insisting on. I'll slap together a quick example to show how you're wrong.
Say I put the ten best cards of [insert playstyle here] on the chopping block. Done, you can't use those in any deck of this impossible mode you want. Yay, miracles and rainbows we can fun the fun out of our fun again! Okay, random Snidely Whiplash queues up their evil aggro net deck and mops the floor with you. *Boo!* "Face can't go face!" *Cue ban hammer on top ten worst aggro card offenders. *Aggro player shrugs and puts together quick zoo lock because low curves with quick life tap cycling is still faster than your [insert random N'Zoth Tiger Druid or Murloc Warrior here].* *Cue ban hammer again on top 10 net deck cards from every playstyle until you've whittled down to Boulderfist Ogres and 2/1 Murlocs.
Mr. Random Snidely Whiplash still puts together an evil net deck, of sorts, in Clown Fiesta Homebrew Town, and mops the floor with you because hey, 1/2/3 mana minions are still faster than Boulderfist Ogre.
/cuehappyneverafter
Okay, so I took this more from of the POV of aggro vs control, but the reality still stands. You ban something from casual and players will still find the most optimized versions of aggro/midrange/control/combo that they can in such a mode and use that instead. You ban more stuff and they'll try to find new optimizations (aka "net decks"). Most casual homebrews are not optimizations of any of the playstyles, which means whatever weird net deck optimization other players can piece together will net more consistency at what they do for whichever playstyle they play when compared to a casual funsies homebrew that does not value as much comparative consistency.
Netdeckers in casual are salty trash from ranked. They are idiots who get rekt so hard in ranked even with thier tier S decks and try to vent of their frustration in casual. The constant spamming and roping, especially of smorcers, make it too obvious .All the other reasons are bullshit excuses. Time restrictions? Quest completion? B*tches please...you can do all these in ranked too.
This debate pretty much comes down to one batch of the playerbase wanting to dictate what the others can play in 'their mode'.
Games should not be about allowing one group of people forcing another group of people how to play.
You may not be able to force others not to use certain decks, but that in nowise disallows you from playing what you want.
It's like if you played rec level sports, and you and some buddies got together for a drop in game at the local venue where other players could drop in and play, and then a full team of professionals showed up and completely dominated everyone, and said, "Why are you complaining? It's just for fun, who cares?" Technically there's no rule they'd be violating....but it's a dick move.
This isn't an argument about what is or isn't in the current set of rules. Clearly there are people who play Hearthstone that don't like queueing into high level competitive decks in a non competitive format. Personally I like to play casual just so I can try out my far fetched ideas and play cards that don't otherwise see play. To suggest that I just concede until I stop queueing into netdecks or just accept my loss and move on because "it's Casual, your losses don't matter" is to ask me to take zero enjoyment from playing and winning. I'm not playing Casual to grind out 100 gold. I'm playing it for the enjoyment. There is no fun to be had from losing/conceding in 80 to 95% of my games. No, my opinion isn't the only one that matters...but neither is my opinion completely meaningless. Clearly there are players that want to have a mode that is free from high level competitive decks.
If they're not going to be working on a new mode (spoiler: they're not), they should at least be working on improving their existing modes. Or....not, and leaving a section of their playerbase completely ignored.
I'm going to be real with you. What you want it impossible to do at the level you're insisting on. I'll slap together a quick example to show how you're wrong.
Say I put the ten best cards of [insert playstyle here] on the chopping block. Done, you can't use those in any deck of this impossible mode you want. Yay, miracles and rainbows we can fun the fun out of our fun again! Okay, random Snidely Whiplash queues up their evil aggro net deck and mops the floor with you. *Boo!* "Face can't go face!" *Cue ban hammer on top ten worst aggro card offenders. *Aggro player shrugs and puts together quick zoo lock because low curves with quick life tap cycling is still faster than your [insert random N'Zoth Tiger Druid or Murloc Warrior here].* *Cue ban hammer again on top 10 net deck cards from every playstyle until you've whittled down to Boulderfist Ogres and 2/1 Murlocs.
Mr. Random Snidely Whiplash still puts together an evil net deck, of sorts, in Clown Fiesta Homebrew Town, and mops the floor with you because hey, 1/2/3 mana minions are still faster than Boulderfist Ogre.
/cuehappyneverafter
Okay, so I took this more from of the POV of aggro vs control, but the reality still stands. You ban something from casual and players will still find the most optimized versions of aggro/midrange/control/combo that they can in such a mode and use that instead. You ban more stuff and they'll try to find new optimizations (aka "net decks"). Most casual homebrews are not optimizations of any of the playstyles, which means whatever weird net deck optimization other players can piece together will net more consistency at what they do for whichever playstyle they play when compared to a casual funsies homebrew that does not value as much comparative consistency.
I'm not talking about a global ban, I'm talking about a game mode where you have custom game settings. Let ME ban specific cards or classes. I don't care if that increases my queue time to HOURS. I am willing to go down that road.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
Ok, just to go back and be sure: You are still insinuating that a casual mode where the opponents decided for each other if the match counted is a good system? You think this system won't be abused, and you think more often than not it will prove to be a better format than casual is now?
As I said that doesn't qualify as an "abuse". Such an outcome is the intention of the system.
I'm trying to understand how you rationalize that losing a game to a try hard and moving on is worse than someone losing to you and getting mad they lost so they strip you of all your rewards for that game- gold, xp, quest progression, etc... all because they have the power you want to give them to say "this game wasn't what I deem fair, doesn't count"... I'm sorry but I stand by it and I think most others do too that the internet is the internet and this system would be just straight destructive to the game.
Isn't it obvious? We want people to have fun and if someone would be so "mad" that they want to "punish" the other they're clearly not having fun and with such a system people are more incentivised to make the game play out more fun for everybody. To be fair, maybe we would need a better communication system as well, but it's clearly better in principle if we want everyone to have a great time. (In case you missed it again: I'm talking only about casual. Not everything need to be as tryhardy competitive as ranked IMO.)
But I want to clarify some details. I think XP and quest progression towards anything that doesn't require to win should go completely uneffected. It should only strip away the win. And I think it would also be important that you can change your "rating" after you received yours. So that if you want to "punish" the other it's very likely they will just do the same to you. But since we're in casual it shouldn't matter much because casual should be the place to just have fun and where you don't care that much about winning. That's the reason why I suggested it. Maybe you want something more like "unranked" which is exactly how "casual" is right now. But I for one would like to have a "true casual". Hopefully that makes it clear.
I think I played less than 100 games in casual from the day I begun to play and if I do some playtesting, I do it in ranked, 'coz I like to baffle, distract and confuse the opponent.
With decks threre are two ways - you want to win as much games as possible, so you netdeck (because trying to build your own super deck usually take you to the close similarity with that one deck every netdecker netdeck) - you want to have fun, so you build an unusual deck with specific way to play
So summed up, it is about the people - as usuall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EU 11/2015+ , f2p 03/2021+: DK 63/ DH 205 /Dr 277 / Hu 733 / Ma 6666 / Pa 1072 / Pr 1165 / Ro 1791 / Sh 1303 / Wl 707 / Wr 664
While i haven't read what others said, i think it's absolutely fine as long as you dont abuse it. For example,if im playing tempo rogue and the opponent drops a crocolisk, i instantly concede. I get that he's a new player,farming for gold. But destroying people with tier 1 decks while they have 0 collection is just unacceptable.
I usually play casual to try ideas and then take them to ranked. Maybe others wanna practise tier 1 decks so to be more successful on ladder. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I usually play casual to try ideas and then take them to ranked. Maybe others wanna practise tier 1 decks so to be more successful on ladder. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Agreed but it is unacceptable when Casual is 80 to 100% netdecks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
I usually play casual to try ideas and then take them to ranked. Maybe others wanna practise tier 1 decks so to be more successful on ladder. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Agreed but it is unacceptable when Casual is 80 to 100% netdecks.
I agree and wish casual contained less netdecks when all I want to do is meme out or work on a homebrew without feeling like I'm playing ladder sans the reward of winning higher ranks if I do well, but I have to ask what the perceived solution is. Should Blizzard create a database that updates with withe most popular builds and set a parameter of X number of card variations to either accept/deny a deck from a no-netdecking version of casual? Would Blizzard ever even see value in
I haven't kept up with much on this thread since it's gone so long now that I couldn't give it much more of my attention, so you may have addressed this already (sorry to bring it up again if you have!). Taking a step back and looking at the OP's original post, it's led to a place where either people think netdecking is fine in casual or it's a problem. I just want to know if there's an idea of how this could be fixed or is it more of a "This bothers me and I don't like it," approach taken here. If it's the latter, this thread might be done at this point and any further complaints about netdecking in casual might be better relegated to the salt thread.
I can't stress this enough: I'm not trying to police anyone, I'm just putting in my two cents and asking what could be done (if anything at all).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
I usually play casual to try ideas and then take them to ranked. Maybe others wanna practise tier 1 decks so to be more successful on ladder. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Agreed but it is unacceptable when Casual is 80 to 100% netdecks.
I agree and wish casual contained less netdecks when all I want to do is meme out or work on a homebrew without feeling like I'm playing ladder sans the reward of winning higher ranks if I do well, but I have to ask what the perceived solution is. Should Blizzard create a database that updates with withe most popular builds and set a parameter of X number of card variations to either accept/deny a deck from a no-netdecking version of casual? Would Blizzard ever even see value in
I haven't kept up with much on this thread since it's gone so long now that I couldn't give it much more of my attention, so you may have addressed this already (sorry to bring it up again if you have!). Taking a step back and looking at the OP's original post, it's led to a place where either people think netdecking is fine in casual or it's a problem. I just want to know if there's an idea of how this could be fixed or is it more of a "This bothers me and I don't like it," approach taken here. If it's the latter, this thread might be done at this point and any further complaints about netdecking in casual might be better relegated to the salt thread.
I can't stress this enough: I'm not trying to police anyone, I'm just putting in my two cents and asking what could be done (if anything at all).
New mode (or, since they've already admitted they have no plans to add a new mode in the near future) just add custom game settings to Casual:
card bans
class bans
"casual only" cards
custom starting health
custom starting armor
custom turn length (fast mode or slow mode)
disable daily quest progress in casual
rarity restriction/bans
weekly rotating 'casual mode' sets, which are different than standard or wild competitive mode
maybe instead of queueing with one deck, you queue with three, and your opponent gets to select which one you play?
just throwing out some ideas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
I usually play casual to try ideas and then take them to ranked. Maybe others wanna practise tier 1 decks so to be more successful on ladder. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Agreed but it is unacceptable when Casual is 80 to 100% netdecks.
I agree and wish casual contained less netdecks when all I want to do is meme out or work on a homebrew without feeling like I'm playing ladder sans the reward of winning higher ranks if I do well, but I have to ask what the perceived solution is. Should Blizzard create a database that updates with withe most popular builds and set a parameter of X number of card variations to either accept/deny a deck from a no-netdecking version of casual? Would Blizzard ever even see value in
I haven't kept up with much on this thread since it's gone so long now that I couldn't give it much more of my attention, so you may have addressed this already (sorry to bring it up again if you have!). Taking a step back and looking at the OP's original post, it's led to a place where either people think netdecking is fine in casual or it's a problem. I just want to know if there's an idea of how this could be fixed or is it more of a "This bothers me and I don't like it," approach taken here. If it's the latter, this thread might be done at this point and any further complaints about netdecking in casual might be better relegated to the salt thread.
I can't stress this enough: I'm not trying to police anyone, I'm just putting in my two cents and asking what could be done (if anything at all).
New mode (or, since they've already admitted they have no plans to add a new mode in the near future) just add custom game settings to Casual:
card bans
class bans
"casual only" cards
custom starting health
custom starting armor
custom turn length (fast mode or slow mode)
disable daily quest progress in casual
rarity restriction/bans
weekly rotating 'casual mode' sets, which are different than standard or wild competitive mode
maybe instead of queueing with one deck, you queue with three, and your opponent gets to select which one you play?
just throwing out some ideas.
I like that. I think as long as there's a way for the opponent to "accept the terms" that would be a great solution. Plenty of players still don't care if casual is 80% netdecks, and being forced into a card or build ban would turn people from casual pretty quickly, since - without countermeasures like opponent approval - it could quickly turn into custom settings to ensure you can run an aggro deck to max out your daily gold limit. Blizzard isn't going to make it that easy for F2P.
I'd love to see Blizzard work on a way to enact some of these ideas. It would be nice to eliminate some cards or full decks when I just want to enjoy the game outside of the meta.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
New mode (or, since they've already admitted they have no plans to add a new mode in the near future) just add custom game settings to Casual:
card bans
class bans
"casual only" cards
custom starting health
custom starting armor
custom turn length (fast mode or slow mode)
disable daily quest progress in casual
rarity restriction/bans
weekly rotating 'casual mode' sets, which are different than standard or wild competitive mode
maybe instead of queueing with one deck, you queue with three, and your opponent gets to select which one you play?
just throwing out some ideas.
Very good ideas! Sounds great. To make it worth their effort I would even be willing to pay a small subscription (or maybe a bigger one time payment might be enough?) to have access to something like this. But I'm not sure how many others would consider that as well. After all you already buy packs to get the cards. Maybe make it come with some of those "casual only" cards, so people are interested in it. I would really love to see this. It would be a dream come true for me.
There's nine pages and i refuse to go back and read everything but here's my personal opinion on netdecking.
I think it's dumb, but i personally enjoy deckbuilding, i'm building a dragon mage right now, and it sucks ass, because i've never made a mage deck before, and that is what is fun to me. What's fun to other people is hitting copy and paste on some aggro deck that only costs 6k dust and playing only 4 games with it a day, or playing thief rogue, or some other retarded deck that one guy has made that is currently popular and is stupid as hell to play against for someone like me that has shit luck, that's why when i see someone playing the copy pasted thief rogue deck i auto concede, not because my shitty mage deck auto loses to it, but because i don't want to deal with the bullshit they would spew for the next 20+ turns. And when netdecking is a more common thing, i just auto concede to every rogue now, because it's always that same shitty deck i don't want to queue into and since everyone is playing it it makes me, someone that enjoys making and testing out new decks, and deck archetypes, not want to play the game anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those who are given more in life, must not cling to it, but risk it all at every moment!
My problem isn't netdecking in casual it's tryharding when I just wanna complete a daily quest
Exactly this. My best experience was when I was playing against a person who clearly had a "play X demons" quest while I had a similar quest. Neither of us killed the other and only traded minions when we both realized the situation. We both decked ourselves and completed the respective questions.
New mode (or, since they've already admitted they have no plans to add a new mode in the near future) just add custom game settings to Casual:
card bans
class bans
"casual only" cards
custom starting health
custom starting armor
custom turn length (fast mode or slow mode)
disable daily quest progress in casual
rarity restriction/bans
weekly rotating 'casual mode' sets, which are different than standard or wild competitive mode
maybe instead of queueing with one deck, you queue with three, and your opponent gets to select which one you play?
just throwing out some ideas.
Very good ideas! Sounds great. To make it worth their effort I would even be willing to pay a small subscription (or maybe a bigger one time payment might be enough?) to have access to something like this. But I'm not sure how many others would consider that as well. After all you already buy packs to get the cards. Maybe make it come with some of those "casual only" cards, so people are interested in it. I would really love to see this. It would be a dream come true for me.
Blizzard will never do this. Never in a million years.
A game mode like this would make the game a lot easier to enjoy for free players. Do you understand why that is not in Blizzard's best interest?
Hearthstone is not meant to be played for free in the long term. The only way Hearthstone exists is by converting free players to paying players, and to keep those players paying.
Without the incentive to buy more cards, the game would die immediately.
Kaladin's plan would work great if Hearthstone used a Living Card Game business model, where you pay a flat rate to get all the cards in a set, but that's not the model they chose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Ok, just to go back and be sure: You are still insinuating that a casual mode where the opponents decided for each other if the match counted is a good system? You think this system won't be abused, and you think more often than not it will prove to be a better format than casual is now?
As I said that doesn't qualify as an "abuse". Such an outcome is the intention of the system.
I'm trying to understand how you rationalize that losing a game to a try hard and moving on is worse than someone losing to you and getting mad they lost so they strip you of all your rewards for that game- gold, xp, quest progression, etc... all because they have the power you want to give them to say "this game wasn't what I deem fair, doesn't count"... I'm sorry but I stand by it and I think most others do too that the internet is the internet and this system would be just straight destructive to the game.
Isn't it obvious? We want people to have fun and if someone would be so "mad" that they want to "punish" the other they're clearly not having fun and with such a system people are more incentivised to make the game play out more fun for everybody. To be fair, maybe we would need a better communication system as well, but it's clearly better in principle if we want everyone to have a great time. (In case you missed it again: I'm talking only about casual. Not everything need to be as tryhardy competitive as ranked IMO.)
But I want to clarify some details. I think XP and quest progression towards anything that doesn't require to win should go completely uneffected. It should only strip away the win. And I think it would also be important that you can change your "rating" after you received yours. So that if you want to "punish" the other it's very likely they will just do the same to you. But since we're in casual it shouldn't matter much because casual should be the place to just have fun and where you don't care that much about winning. That's the reason why I suggested it. Maybe you want something more like "unranked" which is exactly how "casual" is right now. But I for one would like to have a "true casual". Hopefully that makes it clear.
You clarified your point, but I was praying to anything that would listen that you weren't making the point you are. At this point I don't know if I'm getting trolled or what...I'm honestly baffled.
On the positive side, I'm definitely glad your point is only going to affect the win at the very least if there's no convincing you otherwise. I take your point to be inclusive that minion based quests (summon x, y, z, minions or summon x amount of y cost minions) go unaffected by this idea as well. Thus I'm responding assuming that we found some true clarification that ONLY the win-related quests can be denied by this supposed "format". To close on that clarification, at least that's not absolutely dreadful. What you're suggesting has the possibility to make the opponent think: "Ok I tried to go for the easy 3 Druid win quest in casual with Token, but I see my opponents are going to keep denying me wins because I could just as easily take this to ranked considering its current power level". To that extent, at least the idea is a bit less fantastical.
However, at the core this requires sooooo much back-end... not only do you both get to rate the match and decide the final outcome after playing, but then you get a notification that your opponent chose the negative outcome and thus you now have the right to change your mind because they chose the negative outcome for you. (Any other permutation of this idea would go into an infinite loop of pop up questions, so I'm assuming this is the way you'd suggest it go.) On top of that the point still stands that there is no way built into your system to decide if the player didn't have fun because they lost, or didn't have fun because they faced a net-deck. There has to be some way to build accountability and there isn't. What I've been trying to explain to you is your idea allows anyone unhappy to ruin it for others by jumping into games and slamming the "negative" option regardless of the cards played, difficulty of the deck, or its popularity.
You simply cannot create a mode where the user has all the power. MAYBE some of the netdecks go away because the stubborn players that try to Tier 1 your casual mode realize it doesn't benefit them to be there. But MANY MANY more will just queue in, finish the game, and vote all their opponents negative out of defiance sake alone. People are terrible to each other- just look at this thread... it's 9 pages deep and half of it is us and three other people arguing. It simply. Won't. Work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can actually help teach you how to play the Hagatha hero card.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
ha ha, thanks man.
I'm going to be real with you. What you want it impossible to do at the level you're insisting on. I'll slap together a quick example to show how you're wrong.
Say I put the ten best cards of [insert playstyle here] on the chopping block. Done, you can't use those in any deck of this impossible mode you want. Yay, miracles and rainbows we can fun the fun out of our fun again! Okay, random Snidely Whiplash queues up their evil aggro net deck and mops the floor with you. *Boo!* "Face can't go face!" *Cue ban hammer on top ten worst aggro card offenders. *Aggro player shrugs and puts together quick zoo lock because low curves with quick life tap cycling is still faster than your [insert random N'Zoth Tiger Druid or Murloc Warrior here].* *Cue ban hammer again on top 10 net deck cards from every playstyle until you've whittled down to Boulderfist Ogres and 2/1 Murlocs.
Mr. Random Snidely Whiplash still puts together an evil net deck, of sorts, in Clown Fiesta Homebrew Town, and mops the floor with you because hey, 1/2/3 mana minions are still faster than Boulderfist Ogre.
/cuehappyneverafter
Okay, so I took this more from of the POV of aggro vs control, but the reality still stands. You ban something from casual and players will still find the most optimized versions of aggro/midrange/control/combo that they can in such a mode and use that instead. You ban more stuff and they'll try to find new optimizations (aka "net decks"). Most casual homebrews are not optimizations of any of the playstyles, which means whatever weird net deck optimization other players can piece together will net more consistency at what they do for whichever playstyle they play when compared to a casual funsies homebrew that does not value as much comparative consistency.
Yep, wild casual is really casual! You get some netdecking now and then but it is not as prevalent.
Last night I got this new darkest hours warlock in casual but managed to counter it with my homebrew
Netdeckers in casual are salty trash from ranked. They are idiots who get rekt so hard in ranked even with thier tier S decks and try to vent of their frustration in casual. The constant spamming and roping, especially of smorcers, make it too obvious .All the other reasons are bullshit excuses. Time restrictions? Quest completion? B*tches please...you can do all these in ranked too.
I'm not talking about a global ban, I'm talking about a game mode where you have custom game settings. Let ME ban specific cards or classes. I don't care if that increases my queue time to HOURS. I am willing to go down that road.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
As I said that doesn't qualify as an "abuse". Such an outcome is the intention of the system.
Isn't it obvious? We want people to have fun and if someone would be so "mad" that they want to "punish" the other they're clearly not having fun and with such a system people are more incentivised to make the game play out more fun for everybody. To be fair, maybe we would need a better communication system as well, but it's clearly better in principle if we want everyone to have a great time. (In case you missed it again: I'm talking only about casual. Not everything need to be as tryhardy competitive as ranked IMO.)
But I want to clarify some details. I think XP and quest progression towards anything that doesn't require to win should go completely uneffected. It should only strip away the win. And I think it would also be important that you can change your "rating" after you received yours. So that if you want to "punish" the other it's very likely they will just do the same to you. But since we're in casual it shouldn't matter much because casual should be the place to just have fun and where you don't care that much about winning. That's the reason why I suggested it. Maybe you want something more like "unranked" which is exactly how "casual" is right now. But I for one would like to have a "true casual". Hopefully that makes it clear.
I think I played less than 100 games in casual from the day I begun to play and if I do some playtesting, I do it in ranked, 'coz I like to baffle, distract and confuse the opponent.
With decks threre are two ways
- you want to win as much games as possible, so you netdeck (because trying to build your own super deck usually take you to the close similarity with that one deck every netdecker netdeck)
- you want to have fun, so you build an unusual deck with specific way to play
So summed up, it is about the people - as usuall.
EU 11/2015+ , f2p 03/2021+: DK 63 / DH 205 /Dr 277 / Hu 733 / Ma 6666 / Pa 1072 / Pr 1165 / Ro 1791 / Sh 1303 / Wl 707 / Wr 664
While i haven't read what others said, i think it's absolutely fine as long as you dont abuse it. For example,if im playing tempo rogue and the opponent drops a crocolisk, i instantly concede. I get that he's a new player,farming for gold. But destroying people with tier 1 decks while they have 0 collection is just unacceptable.
I usually play casual to try ideas and then take them to ranked. Maybe others wanna practise tier 1 decks so to be more successful on ladder. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Agreed but it is unacceptable when Casual is 80 to 100% netdecks.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
I agree and wish casual contained less netdecks when all I want to do is meme out or work on a homebrew without feeling like I'm playing ladder sans the reward of winning higher ranks if I do well, but I have to ask what the perceived solution is. Should Blizzard create a database that updates with withe most popular builds and set a parameter of X number of card variations to either accept/deny a deck from a no-netdecking version of casual? Would Blizzard ever even see value in
I haven't kept up with much on this thread since it's gone so long now that I couldn't give it much more of my attention, so you may have addressed this already (sorry to bring it up again if you have!). Taking a step back and looking at the OP's original post, it's led to a place where either people think netdecking is fine in casual or it's a problem. I just want to know if there's an idea of how this could be fixed or is it more of a "This bothers me and I don't like it," approach taken here. If it's the latter, this thread might be done at this point and any further complaints about netdecking in casual might be better relegated to the salt thread.
I can't stress this enough: I'm not trying to police anyone, I'm just putting in my two cents and asking what could be done (if anything at all).
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
New mode (or, since they've already admitted they have no plans to add a new mode in the near future) just add custom game settings to Casual:
just throwing out some ideas.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
I like that. I think as long as there's a way for the opponent to "accept the terms" that would be a great solution. Plenty of players still don't care if casual is 80% netdecks, and being forced into a card or build ban would turn people from casual pretty quickly, since - without countermeasures like opponent approval - it could quickly turn into custom settings to ensure you can run an aggro deck to max out your daily gold limit. Blizzard isn't going to make it that easy for F2P.
I'd love to see Blizzard work on a way to enact some of these ideas. It would be nice to eliminate some cards or full decks when I just want to enjoy the game outside of the meta.
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
Very good ideas! Sounds great. To make it worth their effort I would even be willing to pay a small subscription (or maybe a bigger one time payment might be enough?) to have access to something like this. But I'm not sure how many others would consider that as well. After all you already buy packs to get the cards. Maybe make it come with some of those "casual only" cards, so people are interested in it. I would really love to see this. It would be a dream come true for me.
There's nine pages and i refuse to go back and read everything but here's my personal opinion on netdecking.
I think it's dumb, but i personally enjoy deckbuilding, i'm building a dragon mage right now, and it sucks ass, because i've never made a mage deck before, and that is what is fun to me. What's fun to other people is hitting copy and paste on some aggro deck that only costs 6k dust and playing only 4 games with it a day, or playing thief rogue, or some other retarded deck that one guy has made that is currently popular and is stupid as hell to play against for someone like me that has shit luck, that's why when i see someone playing the copy pasted thief rogue deck i auto concede, not because my shitty mage deck auto loses to it, but because i don't want to deal with the bullshit they would spew for the next 20+ turns. And when netdecking is a more common thing, i just auto concede to every rogue now, because it's always that same shitty deck i don't want to queue into and since everyone is playing it it makes me, someone that enjoys making and testing out new decks, and deck archetypes, not want to play the game anymore.
Those who are given more in life, must not cling to it, but risk it all at every moment!
[deleted]
Exactly this. My best experience was when I was playing against a person who clearly had a "play X demons" quest while I had a similar quest. Neither of us killed the other and only traded minions when we both realized the situation. We both decked ourselves and completed the respective questions.
Blizzard will never do this. Never in a million years.
A game mode like this would make the game a lot easier to enjoy for free players. Do you understand why that is not in Blizzard's best interest?
Hearthstone is not meant to be played for free in the long term. The only way Hearthstone exists is by converting free players to paying players, and to keep those players paying.
Without the incentive to buy more cards, the game would die immediately.
Kaladin's plan would work great if Hearthstone used a Living Card Game business model, where you pay a flat rate to get all the cards in a set, but that's not the model they chose.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I've shelled out well over $1k on Hearthstone, yet oddly enough, my concerns about Casual have never been higher.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
You clarified your point, but I was praying to anything that would listen that you weren't making the point you are. At this point I don't know if I'm getting trolled or what...I'm honestly baffled.
On the positive side, I'm definitely glad your point is only going to affect the win at the very least if there's no convincing you otherwise. I take your point to be inclusive that minion based quests (summon x, y, z, minions or summon x amount of y cost minions) go unaffected by this idea as well. Thus I'm responding assuming that we found some true clarification that ONLY the win-related quests can be denied by this supposed "format". To close on that clarification, at least that's not absolutely dreadful. What you're suggesting has the possibility to make the opponent think: "Ok I tried to go for the easy 3 Druid win quest in casual with Token, but I see my opponents are going to keep denying me wins because I could just as easily take this to ranked considering its current power level". To that extent, at least the idea is a bit less fantastical.
However, at the core this requires sooooo much back-end... not only do you both get to rate the match and decide the final outcome after playing, but then you get a notification that your opponent chose the negative outcome and thus you now have the right to change your mind because they chose the negative outcome for you. (Any other permutation of this idea would go into an infinite loop of pop up questions, so I'm assuming this is the way you'd suggest it go.) On top of that the point still stands that there is no way built into your system to decide if the player didn't have fun because they lost, or didn't have fun because they faced a net-deck. There has to be some way to build accountability and there isn't. What I've been trying to explain to you is your idea allows anyone unhappy to ruin it for others by jumping into games and slamming the "negative" option regardless of the cards played, difficulty of the deck, or its popularity.
You simply cannot create a mode where the user has all the power. MAYBE some of the netdecks go away because the stubborn players that try to Tier 1 your casual mode realize it doesn't benefit them to be there. But MANY MANY more will just queue in, finish the game, and vote all their opponents negative out of defiance sake alone. People are terrible to each other- just look at this thread... it's 9 pages deep and half of it is us and three other people arguing. It simply. Won't. Work.